On July 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in Uniloc 2017, LLC v. HULU, LLC. In particular, the CAFC found that the case was not moot despite a prior CAFC judgment of invalidity and that the Board did not err in rejecting Uniloc’s Request for Rehearing on the basis of Section 101 invalidity of the proposed substitute claims. Judge O’Malley issued a strong dissent, accusing the majority of “breath[ing] life into a dead patent and us[ing] the zombie it has created as a means to dramatically expand the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings.”
Recent Posts
- Let’s Get Grateful: IP Stakeholders Reveal What They Were Thankful for in 2024
- False USPTO Narratives and the Urgent Need for PTAB Reform
- SCOTUS Invites SG to Weigh in on Cox/ Sony Cases, Denies Petition Charging Newman’s Removal Harms Patent Owners
- We Want Your Input on Content for IPWatchdog’s PTAB 2025 Program
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, November 22: USPTO Bans Employees from Using Generative AI for Work Purposes; WIPO Member States Adopt New Design Law Treaty; DOJ Proposes Google Must Sell Chrome